Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

CR Request for Controlled Identifiers 1.0 - cid-1.0 #691

Open
iherman opened this issue Jan 13, 2025 · 8 comments
Open

CR Request for Controlled Identifiers 1.0 - cid-1.0 #691

iherman opened this issue Jan 13, 2025 · 8 comments
Assignees
@iherman
Labels
Awaiting Publication Approved by the Director, waiting on publication Entering CR First Candidate Recommendation wg:did

Comments

@iherman
Copy link
Member

iherman commented Jan 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Document title, URLs, estimated publication date

Note: the document started its Recommendation track journey under the title "Controller Documents 1.0", with short name controller-document. The Working group resolved to change the document title; the final name was then agreed on the meeting in January. That also led to the change of the short name (and the name of the underlying Github repository.) The plan is to do the change of the short name in conjunction with the publication of the CR (including adapting the document's header to ensure proper history). This also explains why some header entries lead to a 404.

This request is also a formal request for the approval of "cid-1.0" short name.

Abstract

Status

Link to group's decision to request transition

Changes

This is the first Candidate Recommendation for the planned Recommendation for this specification. This document is a minor re-working of the DID v1.0 specification to generalize the technology to allow non-decentralized identifiers and systems It has a changelog based on changes made since the Decentralized Identifiers v1.0 specification here:

https://w3c.github.io/cid/#revision-history

(Note: there is currently work going on in the DID Working Group to produce a new version of DID that would then depend on this document. See current PR on this.)

Requirements satisfied

Yes.

Dependencies met (or not)

Yes. Most of the normative dependencies are RFCs.

Wide Review

Issues processed:

PRs processed:

Horizontal reviews:

As said before, this document is a minor re-working of the DID v1.0 specification to generalize the technology to allow non-decentralized identifiers and systems; it also incorporates other CR documents that have been reviewed and published by the Working Group, namely the Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0 specification. Those documents had lots of text, terms, and concepts in common, which have been migrated into this document to serve as a common reference. This means that the horizontal reviews on those documents largely apply to this document as well.

Liaisons:

  • There are participants' in the VCWG that overlap with the following groups:

    • RDF Canonicalization and Hashing Working Group
    • Decentralized Identifier Working Group
    • Credentials Community Group
    • Internet Engineering Task Force
    • Internet Engineering Task Force Crypto Forum Research Group
    • Hyperledger Aries
    • Decentralized Identity Foundation Interoperability Working Group
    • IMS Global
    • ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 10
    • ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17/WG 4

  • Web of Things Working Group

    • Joint meeting at W3C TPAC 2023

  • APA Working Group

    • See horizontal reviews

  • National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce

    • DHS actively engaged w/ NIST over VCWG + Justin Richer NIST SP 800-63-C work

  • The American Civil Liberties Union

  • European Telecommunications Standards Institute

    • EU Digital Wallet cites/uses VCWG output + ARF + EBSI + EUDI Wallet

Formal Objections

None.

Implementation

Since the CID specification is a generalization of the DID specification, the test suite results for the DID v1.0 Recommendation proves that the features in this specification are implementable. There were 51 implementations of the DID v1.0 specification. Since using an HTTPS URL vs. a DID was effectively the only significant change to the specification, proving that level of conformance was deemed trivial (as a valid DID is a valid URL). Additionally, the VC Data Integrity implementation reports and the VC JOSE COSE implementation reports further prove conformance as they require controlled identifier documents / decentralized identifier documents to function.

Patent disclosures

None, see

cc: @msporny @selfissued @brentzundel
@iherman iherman added Entering CR First Candidate Recommendation Awaiting Team Verification Awaiting the verification of the W3C Team labels Jan 13, 2025
@w3cbot w3cbot added the wg:did label Jan 13, 2025
@plehegar
Copy link
Member

Given the claim of implementations, how long will the CR phase be ? Will there be tests for the new features ?

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

@simoneonofri , we're inclined to allow this transition to happen. do you believe SING is going provide comments soon or is there a high risk if we allow this transition forward ?

@iherman
Copy link
Member Author

iherman commented Jan 17, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Given the claim of implementations, how long will the CR phase be ? Will there be tests for the new features ?

We think that the "official" deadline, ie, 28 February, might be enough, give or take 1-2 weeks. The spec barely includes any new features (if any at all) compared to what was around in the earlier incarnations of the DI spec, the cryptosuites, JOSE-COSE, let alone the DID specification. The current test suites used for the other spec cover these features.

@BigBlueHat, who is our test master, might have something to add.

cc @msporny @BigBlueHat @selfissued

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Jan 17, 2025

We think that the "official" deadline, ie, 28 February, might be enough, give or take 1-2 weeks.

Yes, agreed.

Will there be tests for the new features?

The new feature is "allow URLs for identifiers", and given that can be accomplished w/ a search/replace on all the existing DID Document examples we have, we didn't feel the need to have to prove that one could use URLs instead of DIDs in controlled identifier documents. There is more elaboration in the "Implementation" portion of this transition request (above). We do not expect to need a test suite for this specification given that other test suites demonstrate the base functionality of this specification (DID test suite, DI test suites, VC JOSE COSE test suites).

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

Approved.

@plehegar plehegar added Awaiting Publication Approved by the Director, waiting on publication and removed Awaiting Team Verification Awaiting the verification of the W3C Team labels Jan 24, 2025
@plehegar plehegar assigned iherman and unassigned plehegar Jan 24, 2025
@simoneonofri
Copy link

To do the follow-up, although already approved anyway :)

We've done some triage and reading the well-structured security considerations. There isn't much risk at a glance, considering the level of abstraction, as pointed out by PING, but it's in the queue to be reviewed with the other VCWG documents.

Thank you,

Simone

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Jan 24, 2025

We've done some triage and reading the well-structured security considerations. There isn't much risk at a glance, considering the level of abstraction, as pointed out by PING, but it's in the queue to be reviewed with the other VCWG documents.

Great, thanks for the update @simoneonofri, much appreciated!

@iherman
Copy link
Member Author

iherman commented Jan 27, 2025

Publication request and announcement drafts have been sent to the webmaster and the comm team.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@iherman iherman

Labels
Awaiting Publication Approved by the Director, waiting on publication Entering CR First Candidate Recommendation wg:did
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
5 participants
@msporny @iherman @plehegar @simoneonofri @w3cbot